Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:25:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

[comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser has been
fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to simulate" and
"correctly simulate"]

I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H (it's
trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
*would* never stop running *unless* aborted. He knows and accepts that
P(P) actually does stop. The wrong answer is justified by what would
happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.

You seem to like this quote. Do you agree with it?

It is the case that H must abort its simulation of P to prevent its own non-termination. The directly executed P(P) benefits from H already
having aborted its simulation of P. P correctly simulated H cannot reap
this benefit proving that it is a different sequence of configurations
than the directly executed P(P).

Meaning that H does not simulate P correctly (if it is not the same
sequence of configurations).

In other words: "if the simulation were right the answer would be
right".

I don't think that's the right paraphrase. He is saying if P were
different (built from a non-aborting H) H's answer would be the right
one.

Which one of these is accurate?

But the simulation is not right. D actually halts.

Thus H(D,D) must abort the simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination.

What's wrong is to pronounce that answer as being correct for the D
that does, in fact, stop.

That is a different D that is being simulated in a different memory
process. The executed D(D) only halts because D correctly simulated by H
was aborted.

There should be no difference whether D is simulated or not, otherwise
the simulation is incorrect.

They are not the same instance of D.

They are the same program.

void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD); // creates new process context
} // thus not the same DDD as the
// one that is directly executed.

That context is identical to the one in which DDD is directly executed.

int main()
{
DDD(DDD);
}

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/4/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 10:14 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:25:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

    [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser has >>>>> been
     fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to simulate" >>>>> and
     "correctly simulate"]

I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
*would* never stop running *unless* aborted.  He knows and accepts that >>>> P(P) actually does stop.  The wrong answer is justified by what would >>>> happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.

You seem to like this quote. Do you agree with it?

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
    If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
    until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
    stop running unless aborted then

    H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
    specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

The first half of the quote agrees that the Sisper approved
criteria has been met, thus unless professor Sipser is wrong
H is correct to reject D as non-halting.

Nope. Since you LIE about what Professor Sipser means by the first part,
you are shown to be just a stupid liar.

The ONLY meaning for a "Correct Simulation" without careful and explicit definition in this field, and that is what Professor Sipser would use,
is a simulaition that correctly fully reproduces the behavior of the
program described by the input, which means a simulation that doesn't
"abort" its processing.

Since such a correct simulation of THIS D shows that it halts, it is
IMPOSSIBLE that H correctly determined that it didn't.

All you claims to the contrary are just stupid lies.

The fact that it seems you can not understand this doesn't make him
wrong, it shows that you are just stupid.

And you arguing about that just show how stupid you are.

Unless you can quote actual reliable material to back your claims, you
are just showing how much of a stupid liar you are.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/4/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 10:14 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:25:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

    [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser >>>>>>> has been
     fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to
simulate" and
     "correctly simulate"]

I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's >>>>>> trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P) >>>>>> *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.  He knows and accepts >>>>>> that
P(P) actually does stop.  The wrong answer is justified by what would >>>>>> happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they actually >>>>>> are.

You seem to like this quote. Do you agree with it?

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

The first half of the quote agrees that the Sisper approved
criteria has been met, thus unless professor Sipser is wrong
H is correct to reject D as non-halting.

Nope. Since you LIE about what Professor Sipser means by the first
part, you are shown to be just a stupid liar.

Ben agreed that the first part has been met therefore
the second part <is> entailed.

No, Ben says that if you redefine the question, and are not talking
about Halting any more, you can meet your requirements.

I guess you can't read proper English.

The problem is your "never stops running unless aborted" as you
interpret it is NOT a correct statement of Halting, as it presuems the
looking at non-equivalent things.

You, of course, are to stupdid to understand the difference.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 7/4/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 10:14 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:25:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

    [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser >>>>>>>>> has been
     fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to >>>>>>>>> simulate" and
     "correctly simulate"]

I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's >>>>>>>> trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that >>>>>>>> P(P)
*would* never stop running *unless* aborted.  He knows and
accepts that
P(P) actually does stop.  The wrong answer is justified by what >>>>>>>> would
happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they
actually are.

You seem to like this quote. Do you agree with it?

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>>>>      stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>
The first half of the quote agrees that the Sisper approved
criteria has been met, thus unless professor Sipser is wrong
H is correct to reject D as non-halting.

Nope. Since you LIE about what Professor Sipser means by the first
part, you are shown to be just a stupid liar.

Ben agreed that the first part has been met therefore
the second part <is> entailed.

No, Ben says that if you redefine the question, and are not talking
about Halting any more, you can meet your requirements.

*Ben did say that the criteria has been met*

He said your ALTERED criteria had been met.

Since your criteria is NOT the criteria for halting, you can't use it to
claim non-halting.

Thus, your claims are shown to be stupid lies out of your intentional
ignorance of definitions.

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.

...

But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not halted.  That much is a truism.

*If the criteria has been met then its second half is entailed*

      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

*Ben incorrectly believes that Professor Sipser is wrong about this*

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 7/4/24 1:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 10:14 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:25:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

    [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. >>>>>>>>>>> Sipser has been
     fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to >>>>>>>>>>> simulate" and
     "correctly simulate"]

I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's >>>>>>>>>> trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>>>>>>> that P(P)
*would* never stop running *unless* aborted.  He knows and >>>>>>>>>> accepts that
P(P) actually does stop.  The wrong answer is justified by >>>>>>>>>> what would
happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they
actually are.

You seem to like this quote. Do you agree with it?

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
10/13/2022>

The first half of the quote agrees that the Sisper approved
criteria has been met, thus unless professor Sipser is wrong
H is correct to reject D as non-halting.

Nope. Since you LIE about what Professor Sipser means by the first >>>>>> part, you are shown to be just a stupid liar.

Ben agreed that the first part has been met therefore
the second part <is> entailed.

No, Ben says that if you redefine the question, and are not talking
about Halting any more, you can meet your requirements.

*Ben did say that the criteria has been met*

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
    If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
    until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
    stop running unless aborted then

    H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
    specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

He said your ALTERED criteria had been met.

*Ben said that this criteria has been met*
    If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
    until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
    stop running unless aborted then

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.

...

But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not halted.  That much is a truism.

But Ben didn't say it was because of a "Correct Simulation".

Ben was willing to alter the definition of Simulatioin to your, while
Professor Sipser didn't

This is just you playing word games.

Joining two sentences from different converstation that just use the
same words is not a proof, but indicates that there may be a difference
in meaning being used.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 7/4/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 12:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 1:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 10:14 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:25:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

    [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser has been
     fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate" and
     "correctly simulate"]

I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H >>>>>>>>>>>> (it's
trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>>>>>>>>> that P(P)
*would* never stop running *unless* aborted.  He knows and >>>>>>>>>>>> accepts that
P(P) actually does stop.  The wrong answer is justified by >>>>>>>>>>>> what would
happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they >>>>>>>>>>>> actually are.

You seem to like this quote. Do you agree with it?

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
10/13/2022>

The first half of the quote agrees that the Sisper approved
criteria has been met, thus unless professor Sipser is wrong >>>>>>>>> H is correct to reject D as non-halting.

Nope. Since you LIE about what Professor Sipser means by the
first part, you are shown to be just a stupid liar.

Ben agreed that the first part has been met therefore
the second part <is> entailed.

No, Ben says that if you redefine the question, and are not
talking about Halting any more, you can meet your requirements.

*Ben did say that the criteria has been met*

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

He said your ALTERED criteria had been met.

*Ben said that this criteria has been met*
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P) >>>  > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.

...

But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
halted.  That much is a truism.

But Ben didn't say it was because of a "Correct Simulation".

I am not going to address your stupid lies any more.

Ben agreed that the above criteria has been met.
Anything and everything that even hints that this
is not true is a lie.

Beleive whatever. lies you want.

All you have done is prove you are a deciever, and nothing you say
should be trusted.

YOu are just showing that your "logic" is based on words salad and not
actual logic.

Good luck with any journal taking that logic.

Of course, my guess is you are going to be stuck rewriting it for millennia.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 7/4/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 12:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 12:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 1:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 10:14 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:25:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

    [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser has been
     fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate" and
     "correctly simulate"]

I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H (it's
trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that P(P)
*would* never stop running *unless* aborted.  He knows and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepts that
P(P) actually does stop.  The wrong answer is justified by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what would
happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually are.

You seem to like this quote. Do you agree with it?

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words >>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its >>>>>>>>>>> input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would >>>>>>>>>>> never
     stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words >>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>

The first half of the quote agrees that the Sisper approved >>>>>>>>>>> criteria has been met, thus unless professor Sipser is wrong >>>>>>>>>>> H is correct to reject D as non-halting.

Nope. Since you LIE about what Professor Sipser means by the >>>>>>>>>> first part, you are shown to be just a stupid liar.

Ben agreed that the first part has been met therefore
the second part <is> entailed.

No, Ben says that if you redefine the question, and are not
talking about Halting any more, you can meet your requirements. >>>>>>>>

*Ben did say that the criteria has been met*

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>>>>      stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>

He said your ALTERED criteria had been met.

*Ben said that this criteria has been met*
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>>>>      stop running unless aborted then

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's >>>>>  > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that

P(P)

*would* never stop running *unless* aborted.

...

But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not >>>>>  > halted.  That much is a truism.

But Ben didn't say it was because of a "Correct Simulation".

I am not going to address your stupid lies any more.

Ben agreed that the above criteria has been met.
Anything and everything that even hints that this
is not true is a lie.

Beleive whatever. lies you want.

It is a verified fact that Ben did agree that the criteria
have been met. That you insist upon lying about that so
that we cannot proceed to the next step that follows that
gives me no reason to continue talking to you.

The problem is that Ben is adopting your definitions that professor
Sipser is not using.

In particular, for professor Sipser, D must be a program (a turing
machine equivalent) but I think Ben is seeing that you H is being
defined to take a TEMPLATE instead of a program.

Another way to look at thins is that H and P are entertwined entities
and not two seperate programs in the system Ben was commenting about.

For Professor Sipser, H and D are REQUIRED to be independent entities,
since that is what Computation Theory deals with.

So, the two problems are in completely different domains.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 7/4/24 2:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 12:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 12:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 1:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 10:14 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:25:29 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

    [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser has been
     fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to simulate" and
     "correctly simulate"]

I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an H (it's
trivial to do for this one case) that correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determines that P(P)
*would* never stop running *unless* aborted.  He knows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and accepts that
P(P) actually does stop.  The wrong answer is justified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by what would
happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they actually are.

You seem to like this quote. Do you agree with it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words >>>>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its >>>>>>>>>>>>> input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D >>>>>>>>>>>>> would never
     stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report >>>>>>>>>>>>> that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words >>>>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>

The first half of the quote agrees that the Sisper approved >>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria has been met, thus unless professor Sipser is wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>> H is correct to reject D as non-halting.

Nope. Since you LIE about what Professor Sipser means by the >>>>>>>>>>>> first part, you are shown to be just a stupid liar.

Ben agreed that the first part has been met therefore
the second part <is> entailed.

No, Ben says that if you redefine the question, and are not >>>>>>>>>> talking about Halting any more, you can meet your requirements. >>>>>>>>>>

*Ben did say that the criteria has been met*

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
10/13/2022>

He said your ALTERED criteria had been met.

*Ben said that this criteria has been met*
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's >>>>>>>  > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines

that P(P)

*would* never stop running *unless* aborted.

...

But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not >>>>>>>  > halted.  That much is a truism.

But Ben didn't say it was because of a "Correct Simulation".

I am not going to address your stupid lies any more.

Ben agreed that the above criteria has been met.
Anything and everything that even hints that this
is not true is a lie.

Beleive whatever. lies you want.

It is a verified fact that Ben did agree that the criteria
have been met. That you insist upon lying about that so
that we cannot proceed to the next step that follows that
gives me no reason to continue talking to you.

The problem is that Ben is adopting your definitions that professor
Sipser is not using.

Ben agrees that my criteria have been met according to their
exact words. If you want to lie about that I won't talk to
you again.

Which meant different things, so not the same.

The biggest problem is your H/P interlocking program pair is something
outside the normal scope of Computation theory.

The way you have built your Deicder/Decider combination isn't actualy
within the definition of normal Computaiton Theory, as that would have
Decider as a totally independent program from the program it is deciding on.

Your H and D aren't that sort of thing because they are interwined into
a single memory space, and even share code.

This makes some things possible to do about the pair that can not be
done if they were independent programs, like H being able to detect that
D calls itself (but not copies of itself, which is why you don't allow
those copies, as that breasks your lie).

Another of the big effect of thins, is that the way you defined it, D
actually does have access to the decider that is going to decide it (if
we follow your rule and name the decider H). This can turn what used to
be an independent fully defined program P into a dependent program
template. Undet THAT condition, Ben agreed that yoUr H could conclude
that no version of H could simulate the version of D that uses it, to
its final state. Since P is a template, and not a program, it doesn't
have the normal Objective definition of behavior, and thus your
subjective one might need to be used, even with its problems.

When you asked Professor Sipser, The H will be a SPECIFIC decider, and
the D will be a specific input that doesn't change, and thus DOES have
an objective behavior (that of directly running it, or completely
simulating it) and only if H can determine that this OBJECTIVE
definition is met, can it abort. Of course, due the relationship in the construction of D, the H that it was built from can NEVER make that
correct determination, as if it does, then D will halt and thus H could
not have made the determination.

The fact that you don't understand this just shows how little you
understand the theory, or it seems, programming in general.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)